Nadzor nad radom policije – kriminološki aspekt / Police Oversight - The Criminology Aspect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vecina suvremenih demokratskih drustava kao temeljnu funkciju policije navodi služenje i zastitu („to serve and protect“). Zastitni dio policijske funkcije se odnosi na zastitu građana od ugrožavanja ili krsenja njihovih ustavom zajamcenih prava. U svrhu realizacije te funkcije, policijskim službenicima su dane ovlasti zadiranja u ta ista prava. U situacijama davanja vecih ovlasti pojedinim državnim službenicima je nužna paralelna izgradnja mehanizama kojima se nadzire profesionalna primjena tih istih ovlasti. Premda vecina policijskih službenika svoj posao obavlja profesionalno, određeni broj policijskih službenika „izlazi“ iz definiranih granica policijskih ovlasti sto rezultira prijavama na postupanje policijskih službenika (do razine Europskog suda za ljudska prava) te narusavanjem ugleda policije i smanjenjem povjerenja u policiju. Vecina policijskih službi ima predviđen nadzor zakonitosti postupanja policijskih službenika (u okviru odjela unutarnje kontrole ili odjela za zakonitost policijskog postupanja), no javnost i zainteresirane skupine s pravom dovode u pitanje opravdanost ispitivanja odgovornosti pojedinih policijskih službenika od strane njihovih kolega iz drugih ustrojstvenih jedinica, odnosno upozoravaju na pristranost u odlukama po zaprimljenim pritužbama. Kada govorimo o europskom prostoru, tada je znacajno istaknuti kako Europski sud za ljudska prava, Europski odbor za sprjecavanje mucenja i neljudskog ili ponižavajuceg ponasanja te Povjerenik za ljudska prava upozoravaju na nacin na koji se rjesavaju pritužbe od strane policije te je Povjerenik za ljudska prava donio misljenje (iz 2009. godine) o neovisnom i ucinkovitom odlucivanju o pritužbama protiv policije. Iz istih razloga su u mnogim državama razvijeni sustavi građanskog nadzora rada policije koji u smislu filozofske opravdanosti ima dvojaku funkciju: kompenziranje vladinog neuspjeha ucinkovitog suzbijanja devijantnog ponasanja pojedinih policijskih službenika te izjednacavanje balansa moci između policijskih službenika i građana (Ferdik i sur., 2013). U radu se daje prikaz nekih postojecih modela nadzora nad radom policije (SAD, Kanada, Velika Britanija, Azija, Australija), razvoj standarda u europskom prostoru (s prikazom aktualne situacije u Hrvatskoj) te interes kriminologa za ovu temu. --------------------- Most of modern democratic societies point out that the fundamental function of police is to “serve and protect“. The protective part of police functions is related to the protection of citizens from the danger or violation of their constitution guaranteed rights. In order to achieve this function, police officers have the authority to reach into these same rights. When giving more power to police officers, parallel mechanism is required in order to monitor professional execution of these powers. While most police officers do their job professionally, a certain number of police officers “go beyond” defined boundaries, resulting in complaints on the police treatment (up to the level of European Court of Human Rights). Therefore this is, inter alia, damaging the police reputation and decrease the citizen`s confidence. Most police agencies have provided supervision of the legality of police conduct (in form of The Department of Internal Control or The Department of Legality of Police Conduct). However, interested groups of citizen question the validity of investigation when oversight of individual police officer conduct other police officers and emphasize the possible bias in handling complaints. When speaking within European area, it is necessary to highlight the remarks given by European Court of Human Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Commissioner for Human Rights, regarding the manner of dealing with these complaints. The Commissioner for Human Rights issued an opinion (from 2009) of an independent and effective determination on complaints against the police. For the same reasons many countries developed systems of civil oversight which in terms of philosophical justification has a dual function: to compensate the government’s inefficient suppression of deviant behavior of certain police officers and to equalize the balance of power between police officers and citizens (Ferdik and assoc., 2013). The paper gives an overview of some of the existing models for the police oversight (the USA, Canada, UK, Asia, and Australia), the development of standards in the European area (with the review of the current situation in Croatia) and interest of criminologists regarding this topic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".